AN UNFAIR ALLOCATION OF FAULT AND LIABILITY: A
|
|
- Ashlynn Marsha Leonard
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 : A Proposal to Remedy an Unjust Legal Precedent and to Reconcile Comparative Fault and the Workers Compensation Act By Amending Tennessee Code Annotated By: James B. Summers John R. Hensley II Allen, Summers, Simpson, Lillie & Gresham, PLLC 80 Monroe Avenue, Suite 650 Memphis, Tennessee (901) jsummers@allensummers.com jhensley@allensummers.com
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.3 BACKGROUND.4 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL SUPPORT...10 CONCLUSION..12 CITATIONS..14 2
3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Seeking a fair and tight fit between fault and liability, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted a modified system of comparative fault in McIntyre v. Balentine 1. Under this system, a defendant would only be liable for the percentage of damages caused by that defendant s negligence. 2 To permit the defendant to take advantage of this new system linking more closely liability to fault, the Court adopted a nonparty defense whereby a defendant could allege that a nonparty caused or contributed to the injury or damage for which recovery is sought. 3 The Tennessee Supreme Court later explained that a jury can assess comparative fault against even immune nonparties, reasoning, It would be patently unfair in many cases to require a defendant to be dragged into court for the malfeasance of another and to thereupon forbid the defendant from establishing that fault should properly lie elsewhere. 4 While all other defendants in Tennessee tort cases enjoy the ability to assess fault against others who may be responsible for the plaintiff s damages, one class of defendants has been consistently denied this opportunity, often bearing a burden of liability that is far in excess of their fault. In fact, such defendants can be assessed 100% liability when they are only 1% at fault, a result that hearkens back to the days of joint and several liability. In Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp. 5, the Tennessee Supreme Court clarified that in an action brought by or on behalf of an employee who has suffered a compensable injury under the Tennessee Workers Compensation Law against a third party defendant, the third party defendant cannot raise the comparative fault of the employer as an affirmative defense. The Court justified the need for this exception to the equitable principles of comparative fault by explaining that if comparative fault could be alleged against an employer, the employee s award would often be defeated by a double reduction, the first reduction occurring when fault is assessed against the employer, and the second reduction occurring when the employer pursues its statutory right of subrogation against the employee s award pursuant to T.C.A (c). 6 In her majority opinion in Troup, Justice Holder noted that this double reduction could be prevented by allowing juries to apportion fault to employers and then limiting an employer s subrogation recovery against the employee s award to the extent that the employer was allocated fault. 7 However, T.C.A (c) currently 3
4 forecloses this possibility by allowing an employer to pursue its full subrogation interest against an employee s recovery regardless of the employer s degree of fault. 8 Justice Holder admitted that prohibiting defendants from alleging comparative fault against the employer is, of course, an exception to the general rule...and will sometimes result in third parties being attributed liability in excess of their fault. 9 Importantly, Justice Holder concluded, Such difficulties could be avoided if Tennessee Code Annotated (c) were amended to allow an employer to recover from an employee s third-party tort recovery only insofar as the employer was not allocated fault in the third-party tort case. We invite the General Assembly to consider such an amendment. 10 To complete the mission of achieving a fair and tight fit between fault and liability that the Tennessee Supreme Court began in McIntyre, the Tennessee General Assembly should heed the invitation of the Tennessee Supreme Court and amend to T.C.A to (1) allow a jury to apportion fault to employers, and (2) limit the employer s subrogation recovery to the extent that the employer was allocated fault. BACKGROUND The Tennessee Supreme Court has long been plagued by the thorny problems created by the interplay between the tort system s doctrine of comparative fault and the workers compensation system s doctrine of no-fault recovery. 11 Under the Tennessee Worker s Compensation Law, employers are required to pay compensation for an employee s personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to fault. 12 The employee s remedies under the Workers Compensation Law are exclusive. 13 Thus, an employee injured in an accident during the course of his employment may recover only workers compensation benefits from his employer; the statutes bar the employee from filing a personal injury lawsuit for damages against the employer. 14 Even when the employee s injury is compensated under the Workers Compensation Law, however, the statutes expressly do not preclude the employee from filing a lawsuit against some person other than the employer to pay damages If the employee recovers damages from such a third party, the employer 4
5 then has a subrogation lien against the recovery for the amount of workers compensation benefits paid. 16 In 1992, in an attempt to more closely link liability with fault in negligence actions, the Tennessee Supreme Court cast aside the deeply rooted legal doctrine of contributory negligence and adopted the modified comparative fault system. 17 As a consequence, the doctrines of remote contributory negligence, last clear chance, and joint and several liability were rendered obsolete. 18 Modified comparative fault requires that, so long as the plaintiff s negligence is less than the defendant s negligence, the plaintiff may recover damages commensurate with the proportion of the total negligence attributable to the defendant being sued. 19 litigation, the Tennessee Supreme Court stated, In considering the fault of a nonparty to the [F]airness and efficiency require that defendants called upon to answer allegations in negligence be permitted to allege, as an affirmative defense, that a nonparty caused or contributed to the injury or damages for which recovery is sought. In cases where such a defense is raised, the trial court shall instruct the jury to assign this nonparty the percentage of the total negligence for which he is responsible. 20 Thus, generally, a defendant accused of negligently causing the injuries of a plaintiff could assert the fault of a nonparty in an effort to mitigate the defendant s liability, even though the plaintiff would not recover against that nonparty in the immediate litigation. 21 However, in subsequent litigation involving the Workers Compensation Law, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted a limited exception to the general rule that fault may be assessed against non-parties. The interaction of comparative fault and the Workers Compensation Law was first addressed by the Tennessee Supreme Court in its 1996 decision, Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. 22, in which the Court considered whether a defendant could assert, as an affirmative defense, that a nonparty employer caused or contributed to injuries suffered by a plaintiff in the scope and course of his employment. The Court rejected this argument because it interpreted McIntyre to require that fault may be attributed only to those persons against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action in tort. 23 Because the plaintiff s employer was immune from tort actions under the Workers Compensation Law, no fault could be attributed to his employer. 24 The Court next addressed the interrelationship of comparative fault and workers compensation in 5
6 Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische, GmbH 25, in which the Court concluded that although the defendant could not introduce evidence that the employer proximately caused the plaintiff s injuries, a jury could, nevertheless, consider whether the employer s negligence was a cause in fact of the plaintiff s injuries. Both Snyder and Ridings were severely scrutinized by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Carroll v. Whitney 26, in which the Court considered whether fault could be assessed against an immune non-party. The Carroll Court noted that its holding in Ridings relied on the distinction in McIntyre between parties and nonparties. 27 The Court explained, [A] careful reading of McIntyre, however, suggests that neither the holding of the case nor its underlying rationale limits the attribution of fault only to persons against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action in tort. Our treatment of nonparties in McIntyre simply examined a plaintiff s ability to recover damages from a nonparty, and our holding was limited accordingly. 28 The Carroll Court observed that fairness required that defendants in a negligence action be permitted to assert that a nonparty caused or contributed to the plaintiff s injury, hearkening back to the stated desire in McIntyre to achieve a tighter fit between liability and fault. 29 Ultimately, the Carroll Court held that when a defendant raises the nonparty defense in a negligence action, a jury may generally apportion fault to immune nonparties. 30 The Carroll Court stated pointedly that it was not overruling Ridings and Snyder. 31 To reconcile Carroll with the earlier decisions, the Court explained that Ridings and Snyder would remain uniquely applicable with regard to the allocation of fault to employers in workers compensation cases. 32 This limited exception in workers compensation cases was necessary, the Court found, to achieve fairness to the employee. 33 A successful employee s recovery could be reduced by operation of the Worker s Compensation Act. 34 The Court observed that under T.C.A (a), an employer who has paid full workers compensation benefits to its employee is entitled to a subrogation lien against the employee s recovery from any third party tortfeasor who may bear some responsibility for the employee s injuries. 35 The Court used the following hypothetical to illustrate the unfairness that would result from a decision not to retain a limited workers compensation exception: 6
7 An employee injured by a piece of equipment may have a cause of action for products liability against the machine s manufacturer. However, the manufacturer could assert at trial that the employer altered the machine, and that this alteration caused the employee s injury. A jury, acting on this use of the nonparty defense, could then allocate fault between the manufacturer and the immune employer, thereby reducing the employee s recovery. Subsequently, the employer could exercise its right of subrogation with regard to the damages assessed against the manufacturer and recovered by the employee. Essentially then, the employer s right of subrogation would defeat the employee s statutory right to seek damages from other tortfeasors. 36 To avoid this result, the Court held that the rule in Ridings and Snyder would be retained only in the workers compensation context. 37 However, in other comparative fault cases, the Court held that a jury may still allocate fault to other tortfeasors against whom a plaintiff, for any reason, could not recover. 38 Therefore, the allocation of fault to immune non-parties was permitted in most cases, with the application of Ridings and Snyder limited to workers compensation cases. 39 Most recently, the Tennessee Supreme Court reaffirmed that comparative fault cannot be alleged against an immune employer by a third party defendant in Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp. 40 In Troup, the appellee argued that where no actual threat of subrogation by the employer exists, thereby eliminating the double reduction problem, a defendant should be allowed to assert comparative fault against the employer. 41 Troup Court disagreed, stating that the potential for double reduction of a plaintiff s recovery was prevalent enough to justify a special bright-line rule for cases when a plaintiff injured on the job files a tort claim against a third party. 42 In summary, the potential for double reduction of a plaintiff s recovery when a plaintiff injured on the job files a tort claim against a third party has been utilized by the Tennessee Supreme Court to justify a significant departure from the otherwise harmonious comparative fault system that champions a fair and tight fit between fault and liability. As things now stand, a third-party stranger to the workers compensation system is made to bear the burden of a full common-law judgment despite possibly much greater fault on the part of the employer. In fact, the third party can be assessed 100% liability when it is only 1% at fault. This obvious inequity if further exacerbated by the right of the employer to recover from the third party the amount it has paid in The 7
8 compensation regardless of the employer s own negligence. Thus, the third party is forced to subsidize a workers compensation system in a proportion greater than his own fault, while the employer is able to benefit from its own malfeasance. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED In her majority opinion in Troup, Justice Holder explained that there are two potential methods for preventing the double reduction problem. 43 The first is the method prescribed by Ridings and Snyder prohibiting juries from apportioning fault to employers in third-party tort cases. The second would be to allow juries to apportion fault to employers and then limit an employer s recovery to the extent that the employer was allocated fault. Justice Holder pointed out that T.C.A (c) currently forecloses the second possibility by allowing an employer to pursue its full subrogation interest against an employee s recovery regardless of the employer s degree of fault. Accordingly, Justice Holder explained that the only method available to the Tennessee Supreme Court for protecting employees from a double reduction in their tort recoveries is to follow Ridings and Snyder and to prohibit juries from apportioning fault to employers. 44 Pertinently, Justice Holder offered a simple and concise remedy to this complicated situation, concluding, This method is, of course, an exception to the general rule provided in Carroll and will sometimes result in third parties being attributed liability in excess of their fault. Such difficulties could be avoided if Tennessee Code Annotated section (c) were amended to allow an employer to recover from an employee s third-party tort recovery only insofar as the employer was not allocated fault in the third-party tort case. We invite the General Assembly to consider such an amendment. 45 To complete the mission of achieving a fair and tight fit between fault and liability that the Tennessee Supreme Court began in McIntyre, the Tennessee General Assembly should heed the invitation of the Tennessee Supreme Court and amend to T.C.A to (1) allow a jury to apportion fault to employers, and (2) limit the employer s subrogation recovery to the extent that the employer was allocated fault. The 8
9 following proposed amendments to Tennessee Code Annotated both solve the double reduction problem and bring harmony to Tennessee comparative fault law a : Tennessee Code Annotated Actions Against Third Persons. (a) When the injury or death for which compensation is payable under this chapter was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against some person other than the employer to pay damages, the injured worker, or the injured worker s dependents, shall have the right to take compensation under this chapter, and the injured worker, or those to whom the injured worker s right of action survives at law, may pursue the injured worker s or their remedy by proper action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the other person. In any such action, the defendant may raise the comparative fault of the employer as an affirmative defense. (b) In the event of a recovery from the other person by the worker, or those to whom the worker s right of action survives, by judgment, settlement or otherwise, the attorney representing the injured worker, or those to whom the injured worker s right of action survives, and effecting the recovery, shall be entitled to a reasonable fee for the attorney s services, and the attorney shall have a first lien for the fees against the recovery; provided, that if the employer has engaged other counsel to represent the employer in effecting recovery against the other person, then a court of competent jurisdiction shall, upon application, apportion the reasonable fee between the attorney for the worker and the attorney for the employer, in proportion to the services rendered. (c) (1) In the event of a recovery against the third person by the worker, or by those to whom the worker s right of action survives, by judgment, settlement or otherwise, and the employer s maximum liability for workers compensation under this chapter has been fully or partially paid and discharged, the employer shall have a subrogation lien against the recovery to the extent that such payments by the employer exceed the proportionate share of damages attributable to the employer s fault, if any. The employer may intervene in any action to protect and enforce the lien. (2) In the event the net recovery by the worker, or by those to whom the worker s right of action survives, exceeds the amount paid by the employer, and the employer has not, at the time, paid and discharged the employer s full maximum liability for worker s compensation under this chapter, the employer shall be entitled to a credit on the employer s future liability, as it accrues, to the extent the net recovery collected exceeds the amount paid by the employer. The employer shall be entitled to such credit only to the extent that its payment for workers compensation under this chapter exceeds the proportionate share of damages attributable to the employer s fault, if any. a Proposed amendments are highlighted by bold text. 9
10 (3) In the event the worker, or those to whom the worker s right of action survives, effects a recovery, and collection of that recovery, from the other person, by judgment, settlement or otherwise, without intervention by the employer, the employer shall nevertheless be entitled to a credit on the employer s future liability for worker s compensation, as it accrues under this chapter, to the extent of the net recovery. The employer shall be entitled to such credit only to the extent that its payment for workers compensation under this chapter exceeds the proportionate share of damages attributable to the employer s fault, if any. The amendments make clear that comparative fault may be alleged against employers in third party actions (T.C.A (a), proposed). Additionally, the employer s subrogation interest in the employee s award is limited to the extent that compensation payments by the employer exceed the proportionate share of damages attributable to the employer s fault. (T.C.A (c)(1), proposed). Finally, the employer is entitled to a credit for its future liability for worker s compensation only to the extent that its payment for worker s compensation exceeds the proportionate share of damages attributable to the employer s fault. (T.C.A (c)(2)-(3), proposed). With four (4) simple clauses added to the body of T.C.A , the double reduction problem is eliminated, and harmony within Tennessee comparative fault law is achieved. Third party defendants will no longer be forced to bear a burden of liability far in excess of their fault, while employers will no longer be able to benefit from their malfeasance. In short, the proposed amendments help to achieve a fair and tight fit between fault and liability. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL SUPPORT Should the General Assembly adopt the proposed amendments to T.C.A , Tennessee would join a growing list of states that allow fault to be assessed against employers in third party actions brought by or on behalf of employees. The California Court of Appeals, when faced with the same issue, allowed comparative fault to be assessed against the employer, and limited the employer s subrogation remedy, stating: In this type of case, the third party tortfeasor should be required to reimburse the employer or his insurance carrier for compensation benefits paid only to the extent that such benefits have exceeded the proportionate share of damages attributable to the employer s negligence...this approach is thus in accord with the concern shown by the court...that the 10
11 entire burden of a loss for which two or more defendants were responsible should not be shouldered by one alone. Furthermore, implementation of the above-described rule will not contravene the policies of the workers compensation system: employer liability will still be limited to the payment of compensation benefits, while the employer s incentive for maintaining safe working conditions will be reinforced. 46 Likewise, Idaho courts have limited the employer s right to subrogation in cases where the employer has been determined to be negligent. 47 The courts have commented that this scheme satisfies several public policy interests, including balancing the competing interest of a sheltered employer and an overburdened third party, preventing an employer and its insurer from profiting by the employer s own wrong, and protecting the third party s right to allege the comparative negligence of others. 48 Additionally, North Carolina statutes permit a third party to raise the employer s negligence for the purpose of reducing the plaintiff s recovery by the amount of the employer s subrogated interest. 49 Illinois courts have gone a step beyond the previously mentioned states, allowing a third party tortfeasor to seek contribution from a negligent employer. 50 The Illinois scheme is driven by the courts concern that a third party stranger to the workers compensation system could otherwise be made to bear the full burden of a tort judgment despite possibly greater fault on the part of the employer. 51 Likewise, the Minnesota Supreme Court, citing the need for an approach that is both equitable and consonant with compensation policy, has held that a third party may seek contribution from a negligent employer in proportion to the employer s fault, but in no event beyond the employer s workers compensation liability. 52 It is clear that the inequities of allowing a negligent employer to benefit from its wrongdoing while leaving a third party to bear liability in excess of its fault have been shared, considered, and addressed by various legislatures and courts around this country. Tennessee should join the growing list of concerned states that have sought to remedy this problem by adopting the proposed amendments to T.C.A
12 CONCLUSION The timing is ripe to complete the mission of achieving a fair and tight fit between fault and liability in employee actions against third parties by amending the Tennessee third party action statute. The Tennessee Supreme Court has made a direct appeal to the General Assembly, articulating the changes to the Tennessee Code that are necessary to solve the problems presented by this convoluted issue. The Tennessee General Assembly should therefore heed the invitation of the Tennessee Supreme Court and amend T.C.A to (1) allow a jury to apportion fault to employers, and (2) limit the employer s subrogation recovery to the extent that the employer was allocated fault. Perhaps nothing can illustrate the inequities in the current system and the corresponding need for statutory amendments better than personal examples encountered in the author s daily law practice. The author has experienced several situations in which a settlement was forced on a third party defendant because the risk of an adverse verdict above the tortfeasor s insurance policy limits was too substantial to proceed to trial. Significantly, these settlements occurred in situations in which there was substantial evidence that the employer had a higher degree of fault than the third party defendant. In one instance, three (3) mock juries were empanelled on a catastrophic injury case. Although one (1) of the three (3) juries found 100% negligence on the part of the employer, the remaining two (2) did not reach 100%, and therefore found against the third party defendant. In discussions with the juries thereafter, they all felt that there was substantial fault on the part of the employer, but since the fault did not amount to 100%, they were forced to allocate fault only between the defendant and the plaintiff. The mock verdict amounts were in excess of $20,000,000.00, the corresponding limits of insurance for the third party defendant. Based on all of the evidence in the case and conversations with the mock juries, the third party defendant most likely would have been apportioned negligence totaling 30% or less. The carriers for the third party defendant were forced to settle the case for nearly $10,000,000.00, an amount far in excess of defendant s proportional fault. Had comparative fault of the employer been available as an affirmative defense, the case could have been resolved for substantially less, and more 12
13 importantly the award would have reflected the tight fit between fault and liability desired by the McIntyre Court. In McIntyre, the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected contributory negligence and joint and several liability in favor of comparative negligence to achieve a fairer and tighter fit between fault and liability. The fair and tight fit is lost, however, when some participants to an act of negligence are excluded from the apportionment of fault. Logic dictates that, if the negligence of an actor who is not a party is not included in the comparative negligence calculation, the percentage of negligence of defendants who are parties will be inflated. Throughout the state of Tennessee, juries, unable to allocate fault to immune employers, are holding defendants liable not only for their own proportionate share of fault, but also for the proportionate share of fault attributable to the immune employer, reviving one of the evils of joint and several liability that McIntyre sought to cure. Although the comparative fault system has brought a great deal of fairness into Tennessee tort litigation, it remains patently unfair to require third party defendants to be summoned into court for the malfeasance of the employer and to thereupon forbid the third party defendants from establishing that fault should properly lie with the employer. Fortunately, the solution to this problem is simple. With four (4) straightforward clauses added to the body of T.C.A , the inequities inherent in the current scheme are remedied, the double reduction problem enunciated by the Tennessee Supreme Court is eliminated, and harmony within Tennessee comparative fault law is achieved. Third party defendants will no longer be forced to bear a burden of liability far in excess of their fault, while employers will no longer be able to benefit from their malfeasance. The General Assembly should therefore take this critical opportunity to unify Tennessee comparative fault law, achieving for all defendants a fair and tight fit between fault and liability. 13
14 1 McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). 2 Id. at Id. 4 Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14, 20 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting Estate of Hunter v. General Motors Corp., 729 So. 2d 1264, 1273 (Miss. 1999). 5 Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp., 236 S.W.3d 143 (Tenn. 2007). 6 Id. at Id. at 148, fn See, Castleman v. Ross Eng g, Inc., 958 S.W.2d 720, (Tenn. 1997). 9 Troup, 236 S.W.3d at 148, fn Id. 11 Id. at T.C.A (a). 13 Id. 14 Valencia v. Freeland and Lemm. Const. Co., 108 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Tenn. 2003). 15 T.C.A (a). 16 T.C.A (c). 17 McIntyre, 833 S.W.2d at Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. 22 Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., 914 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1996). 23 Id. at Id. at Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische, GmbH, 955 S.W.2d 252 (Tenn. 1997). 26 Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14 (Tenn. 2000). 27 Id. at Id. 29 Id. at Id. at Id. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Id. at Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp., 236 S.W.3d 143 (Tenn. 2007). 41 Id. at Id. at
15 43 Id. at 148, fn Id. 45 Id.. 46 Arbaugh v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 80 Cal. App. 3d 500, (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). 47 See, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Adams, 417 P.2d 417 (Id. 1966); Schneider v. Farmers Merchant, 678 P.2d 33, 36 (Id. 1983). 48 Barnette v. Eagle Helicopters, Inc., 848 P.2d 419 (Id. 1993). 49 See, N.C.G.S (e); Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 305 S.E.2d 528 (N.C. 1938). 50 Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 585 N.E.2d 1023 (Ill. 1991). 51 Id. 52 See, Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp., 257 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 1977). 15
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002 LANA MARLER, ET AL. v. BOBBY E. SCOGGINS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rhea County No. 18471 Buddy D. Perry, Judge
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HELENE IRENE SMILEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 26, 2001 9:05 a.m. v No. 217466 Oakland Circuit Court HELEN H. CORRIGAN, LC No. 96-522690-NI and Defendant-Appellant,
More informationCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES We have compiled a list of the various laws in every state dealing with whether the state is a pure contributory negligence state (bars recovery
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE October 16, 2018 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE October 16, 2018 Session 12/19/2018 SHAWN T. SLAUGHTER V. GROVER T. MILLS ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 11-C-434 Jeff Hollingsworth,
More informationShould North Carolina Enact the Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act?
Should North Carolina Enact the Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act? by Burton Craige Burton Craige is Legal Affairs Counsel for the Academy (soon to be the North Carolina Advocates for Justice).
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL P. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2010 v No. 293354 Mackinac Circuit Court SHEPLER, INC., LC No. 07-006370-NO and Defendant-Appellee, CNA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. ) Appeal No. 02A CV-00237
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON MARY ANN DOWDY, Parent and ) Next of Kin of STEVE DOWDY, ) Dec d., and MARY ANN DOWDY, ) Individually; CATHY E. DOWDY, ) Parent and Next of Kin of ARGUSTA
More informationOctober 11, Drafting Committee, Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act (Fifth Tentative Draft)
October 11, 2001 To: From: Drafting Committee, Uniform Apportionment of Tort Responsibility Act (Fifth Tentative Draft) Roger Henderson, Reporter Re: Seattle, Washington Drafting Committee Meeting, November
More informationas amended by Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act 58 of 1971 (RSA) (RSA GG 3150) came into force on date of publication: 16 June 1971 ACT
(SA GG 5689) came into force in South Africa and South West Africa on date of publication: 1 June 1956 (see section 6 of Act) APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Section 6 originally stated This Act shall
More informationGovernment of the District of Columbia OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL JUDICIARY SQUARE 441FOURTH ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.
Government of the District of Columbia OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL JUDICIARY SQUARE 441FOURTH ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 BY E-MAIL Gene N. Lebrun, Esq. PO Box 8250 909 St. Joseph Street, S.
More informationLIABILITY AND THE SOLE DEFENDANT
LIABILITY AND THE SOLE DEFENDANT APPLYING MINNESOTA STATUTE SECTION 604.02 AFTER STAAB V. DIOCESE OF ST CLOUD By Laura A. Moehrle and Matthew M. Johnson Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A. Johnson & Condon, P.A.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PRO-STAFFERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION July 23, 2002 9:05 a.m. v No. 231685 Genesee Circuit Court PREMIER MANUFACTURING SUPPORT LC No. 99-065387-NO
More informationCodebook. A. Effective dates: In the data set, the law is coded as if it changes from one month to
Page 1 Codebook I. General A. Effective dates: In the data set, the law is coded as if it changes from one month to the next. However, the laws actually take effect on certain dates. If the effective date
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 17, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 17, 2006 Session RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. v. EDWIN JASON ALDRICH, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Montgomery County No. MC-CH-CV-D-T-04-12
More informationNovember/December 2001
A publication of the Boston Bar Association Pro Rata Tort Contribution Is Outdated In Our Era of Comparative Negligence Matthew C. Baltay is an associate in the litigation department at Foley Hoag. His
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 9, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-895 / 10-1016 Filed February 9, 2011 WILLEY, O'BRIEN, L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. UNION INSURANCE COMPANY OF PROVIDENCE and WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/ July
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. INTRODUCTION
FOR PUBLICATION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 1 MASARU FURUOKA, a.k.a. LEE KONGOK, v. Plaintiff, DAI-ICHI HOTEL (SAIPAN, INC.; JAPAN TRAVEL BUREAU; TOKIO MARINE
More informationRes Judicata Personal Injury and Vehicle Property Damage Arising from a Single Accident
Nebraska Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 Article 12 1961 Res Judicata Personal Injury and Vehicle Property Damage Arising from a Single Accident John Ilich Jr. University of Nebraska College of Law Follow
More informationHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT ANALYSIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 491 RELATING TO: SPONSOR(S): TIED BILL(S): Comparative Fault/Negligence Cases Representatives Baker, Kottkamp, and others None
More informationMaryland tort lawyers may need to re-think their understanding of
4 Maryland Bar Journal September 2014 The Evolution of Pro Rata Contribution and Apportionment Among Joint Tort-Feasors By M. Natalie McSherry Maryland tort lawyers may need to re-think their understanding
More informationLawson v R&L Carriers, Inc NY Slip Op 33581(U) November 8, 2013 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 1207/11 Judge: Augustus C.
Lawson v R&L Carriers, Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 33581(U) November 8, 2013 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 1207/11 Judge: Augustus C. Agate Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 18, 2015 Session MELANIE JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF MATTHEW H. v. SHAVONNA RACHELLE WINDHAM, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court
More informationCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES
MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Wisconsin Louisiana California Phone: (800) 637-9176 gwickert@mwl-law.com www.mwl-law.com CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES Matthiesen,
More informationCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES
MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. P.O. Box 270670, Hartford, WI 53027 Phone: (262) 673-7850 Fax: (262) 673-3766 gwickert@mwl-law.com www.mwl-law.com CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 9, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 9, 2002 Session MICHAEL D. MATTHEWS v. NATASHA STORY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hawkins County No. 10381/5300J John K. Wilson,
More informationMotion for Rehearing Denied August 4, 1983 COUNSEL
TAYLOR V. DELGARNO TRANSP., INC., 1983-NMSC-052, 100 N.M. 138, 667 P.2d 445 (S. Ct. 1983) BILLY THOMAS TAYLOR, Plaintiff, vs. DELGARNO TRANSPORTATION, INC., a corporation, and BMS INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation,
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Schrempf, Kelly, Napp & Darr, Ltd. v. Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund, 2015 IL App (5th) 130413 Appellate Court Caption SCHREMPF, KELLY, NAPP AND DARR,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 16, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 16, 2007 Session GARY WEAVER, ET AL. v. THOMAS R. McCARTER, ET AL. A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. 98-0425-3 The Honorable
More informationCHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS
Cap.107] CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS CHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS Act No. 12 of 1968. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT
More informationJeffrey V. Hill Bodyfelt Mount LLP 707 Southwest Washington St. Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon (503)
Jeffrey V. Hill Bodyfelt Mount LLP 707 Southwest Washington St. Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 243-1022 hill@bodyfeltmount.com LIQUOR LIABILITY I. Introduction Liquor Liability the notion of holding
More informationIndustrial Commission, and accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals. Page 356
Page 356 495 S.E.2d 356 347 N.C. 530 Charles Lynwood JOHNSON v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. No. 282PA97. Supreme Court of North Carolina. Feb. 6, 1998. Taft, Taft & Haigler, P.A. by Thomas F.
More informationKY DRAM SHOP MEMO II
I. Kentucky s Dram Shop Act KY DRAM SHOP MEMO II KRS 413.241 Legislative finding; limitation on liability of licensed sellers or servers of intoxicating beverages; liability of intoxicated person (1) The
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2007 Session JUANITA MULLINS, individually and as Executor of the Estate of DANIEL V. MULLINS, deceased v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE January 4, 2006 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE January 4, 006 Session NOEL CRAWLEY and JOSEPHINE CRAWLEY v. HAMILTON COUNTY Appeal by permission from the Court of Appeals Circuit Court for Hamilton County
More informationThe Contributory Negligence Act
1 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE c. C-31 The Contributory Negligence Act being Chapter C-31 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective February 26, 1979) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 19, 2013 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 19, 2013 Session KRISTINA MORRIS v. JIMMY PHILLIPS, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 11C3082 Joseph P. Binkley, Jr.,
More informationIn this case we must decide whether Kentucky law or Illinois law governs a lawsuit arising
Third Division September 29, 2010 No. 1-09-2888 MARIA MENDEZ, as Special Administrator for the Estate ) Appeal from the of Jaime Mendez, Deceased, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 4, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 4, 2002 Session HANNAH ROBINSON v. CHARLES C. BREWER, ET AL. A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C99-392 The Honorable Roger
More informationRECENT INAPPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON SEVERAL LIABILITY
RECENT INAPPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON SEVERAL LIABILITY By: David H. Levitt * Hinshaw & Culbertson Chicago In 1986, the Illinois legislature enacted 735 ILCS 5/2-1117. That statute provided that defendants
More informationIndiana Rejoins Minority Permitting Negligent Hiring Claims Even Where Respondeat Superior is Admitted
www.pavlacklawfirm.com September 30 2016 by: Colin E. Flora Associate Civil Litigation Attorney Indiana Rejoins Minority Permitting Negligent Hiring Claims Even Where Respondeat Superior is Admitted This
More informationTorts Tutorial Chapter 6 Joint Tortfeasors
INTRODUCTION This program is designed to provide a review of basic concepts covered in a first-year torts class and is based on DeWolf, Cases and Materials on Torts (http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/torts/text
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL AS AMENDED ON THIRD CONSIDERATION, JUNE 20, 2011 AN ACT
PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. PRINTER'S NO. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 1 Session of 0 INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF AND CORMAN, JUNE, 0 AS AMENDED ON THIRD CONSIDERATION, JUNE 0, 0 AN ACT 1 1
More information1 of 1 DOCUMENT. PULLMAN STANDARD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABEX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT PULLMAN STANDARD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABEX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville 693 S.W.2d 336;
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LADONNA NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2017 9:10 a.m. and No. 329733 Wayne Circuit Court MERIDIAN HEALTH PLAN OF MICHIGAN, LC No. 13-004369-NH also
More informationMonica Vickery sought review of the court of appeals. damages in her defamation suit against the mother and sister of
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationFair Share Act. Joint and Several Liability
Fair Share Act The model Fair Share Act builds upon and replaces!"#$%&' ()*+,' -+.' /0102-3' Liability Abolition Act, which was approved in 1995. It retains the central feature of the earlier model act:
More informationILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER I CIVIL PROCEDURE. On June 11, 2003, Section was amended. The change specifically prohibits
If you have questions or would like further information regarding Joint and Several Liability, please contact: David Flynn 312-540-7662 dflynn@querrey.com Result Oriented. Success Driven. www.querrey.com
More informationYOU PAY FOR YOUR WRONG AND NO ONE ELSE S: THE ABOLITION OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
30 YOU PAY FOR YOUR WRONG AND NO ONE ELSE S: THE ABOLITION OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY By: Alice Chan In April 2006, Florida abolished the doctrine of joint and several liability in negligence cases.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 5, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 5, 2010 Session EDUARDO SANTANDER, Plaintiff-Appellee, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., Intervenor-Appellant, v. OSCAR R. LOPEZ, Defendant Appeal from
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2015 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2015 Session CLIFFORD SWEARENGEN v. DMC-MEMPHIS, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-0057-2011 John R. McCarroll,
More informationJUDGMENT AND ORDER AFFIRMED. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE VOGT Lichtenstein and Plank*, JJ., concur. Announced: August 7, 2008
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals Nos.: 07CA0940 & 07CA1512 Jefferson County District Court No. 04CV1468 Honorable Jane A. Tidball, Judge Whitney Brody, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State Farm Mutual
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. ALBERT J. BALAJADIA and WILLIAM L. GAVRAS, Plaintiff-Appellants, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM ALBERT J. BALAJADIA and WILLIAM L. GAVRAS, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellee. Supreme Court Case No.: CVA16-004 Superior Court Case No.: CV0183-15
More informationDamages - The Compensatory Theory Favored over the Colateral Source Doctrine - Coyne v. Campbell, 11 N.Y.2d 372, 183 N.E.
DePaul Law Review Volume 12 Issue 2 Spring-Summer 1963 Article 13 Damages - The Compensatory Theory Favored over the Colateral Source Doctrine - Coyne v. Campbell, 11 N.Y.2d 372, 183 N.E.2d 891 (1962)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 580 November 29, 2017 103 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Panayiota COOKSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lauree LOFLAND, Defendant-Respondent. Multnomah County Circuit Court 14CV06526;
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT BROWN & BROWN, INC., Appellant, v. JAMES T. GELSOMINO and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. No. 4D17-3737 [November 28, 2018] Appeal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,890. and. NORTHERN CLEARING, INC. and OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO., Intervenors/Appellees.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,890 PAMELA HEIMERMAN, Individually, as Surviving Spouse and Heir At Law of DANIEL JOSEPH HEIMERMAN, Deceased, Appellant, v. ZACHARY ROSE and PAYLESS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 10, 2005 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 10, 2005 Session JENNIE JONES v. PROFESSIONAL MOTORCYCLE ESCORT SERVICE, L.L.C., ET AL. Interlocutory Appeal from the Court of Appeals Circuit Court
More informationTHE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. Appellate Case No CERTIFIED QUESTION
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court John William Machin, Plaintiff, v. Carus Corporation, Defendant. Appellate Case No. 2015-000901 CERTIFIED QUESTION ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RANDALL SPENCE and ROBERTA SPENCE and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Nov 6 2017 23:02:20 2016-IA-01060-SCT Pages: 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TARINIKA SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF KAYDEN JOHNSON, DECEASED, SHELENA AUSTIN PREWITT,
More informationDocket No. 24,581 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2006-NMCA-111, 140 N.M. 293, 142 P.3d 374 July 26, 2006, Filed
TERRAZAS V. GARLAND & LOMAN, 2006-NMCA-111, 140 N.M. 293, 142 P.3d 374 PEDRO TERRAZAS, SOCORRO TERRAZAS, AGUSTINA E. GARCIA and FILIGONIO GARCIA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GARLAND & LOMAN, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 26, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 26, 2006 Session JERRY PETERSON, ET AL. v. HENRY COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT, ET AL. A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Henry County
More informationNumber 41 of 1961 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 REVISED. Updated to 13 April 2017
Number 41 of 1961 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 REVISED Updated to 13 April 2017 This Revised Act is an administrative consolidation of the. It is prepared by the Law Reform Commission in accordance with its
More informationCivil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92
New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013 RODNEY V. JOHNSON v. TRANE U.S. INC., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-000880-09 Gina
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, EX REL. DAVID RABER, v. HONGLIANG WANG, Plaintiffs/Appellees, Defendant/Appellant. 1 CA-CV 11-0560 DEPARTMENT C O P I N I O N Appeal
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Public Welfare, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2408 C.D. 2002 : Craig Tetrault : Argued: March 31, 2003 BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 24, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 24, 2005 Session FINOVA CAPITAL CORPORATION v. BILLY JOE REGEL, INDIVIDUALLY, d/b/a BARTLETT PRESCRIPTION SHOP Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 15, 2009 Session. CURTIS ROBIN RUSSELL, et al., v. ANDERSON COUNTY, et al.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 15, 2009 Session CURTIS ROBIN RUSSELL, et al., v. ANDERSON COUNTY, et al. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County No. A4LA0692 Hon.
More informationCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT
c t CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information
More informationTwins Cities Claims Association: Updates on Rule 68, Good Faith Law, and Joint & Several Liability. Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A.
Twins Cities Claims Association: Updates on Rule 68, Good Faith Law, and Joint & Several Liability Presented by: Dyan Ebert & Cally Kjellberg Quinlivan & Hughes, P.A. April 13, 2010 The New Rule 68 The
More informationAPPORTIONMENT OF FAULT TO A NON-PARTY POINTING FINGERS TO VICTORY
APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT TO A NON-PARTY POINTING FINGERS TO VICTORY By David C. Marshall, Christian J. Lang and Marcus W. Wisehart David C. Marshall Christian J. Lang Apportioning fault to a non-party is
More informationThe... case was tried before a jury [**3] on the basis of Arkansas's wrongful death statute...
HATAWAY v. McKINLEY SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE, AT JACKSON 830 S.W.2d 53; 1992 Tenn. LEXIS 313 April 27, 1992, Filed OPINIONBY: E. RILEY ANDERSON In this case, we are asked to decide whether the lex loci
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 3, 2004 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 3, 2004 Session PATRICIA CONLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARTHA STINSON, DECEASED v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal by
More informationON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. DCA Case No.: 1D01-4606 Florida Bar No. 184170 CYNTHIA CLEFF NORMAN, as ) Personal Representative of ) the Estate of WILLIAM CLEFF, ) deceased, ) ) Petitioner,
More informationCase 3:17-cv DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15
Case 3:17-cv-00270-DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION TINA L. WALLACE PLAINTIFF VS. CITY OF JACKSON,
More informationGOL : New York Court of Appeals Adopts Aggregation Method in Crediting Settlements to Verdicts Assessed Against Non- Settling Defendants
St. John's Law Review Volume 68 Issue 1 Volume 68, Winter 1994, Number 1 Article 12 March 2012 GOL 15-108: New York Court of Appeals Adopts Aggregation Method in Crediting Settlements to Verdicts Assessed
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 2000 Session. VICTORIA ROBBINS v. BILL WOLFENBARGER, D/B/A WOLF S MOTORS and SAM HORNE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 2000 Session VICTORIA ROBBINS v. BILL WOLFENBARGER, D/B/A WOLF S MOTORS and SAM HORNE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County No. L-11942
More informationM E M O R A N D U M. Executive Summary
To: New Jersey Law Revision Commission From: Eileen Funnell Re: Jones v. Morey s Piers, Inc. and the 90-day Deadline of N.J.S. 59:8 8 Date: November 5, 2018 M E M O R A N D U M Executive Summary In the
More information7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE
CHARGE 7.32 Page 1 of 9 7.32 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: INTERROGATORIES (Approved before 1985) NOTE TO JUDGE The interrogatories selected by the Committee for submission to the jury on the issue of comparative
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 25, 2007 Session Heard at Maryville 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 25, 2007 Session Heard at Maryville 1 JEREMY FLAX ET AL. v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION ET AL. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals, Middle
More informationSaturday, December 3, 2011
Good Faith Lien Waiver Negotiation Guidelines Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-66.9 Suggested By The Attorney General Of The Commonwealth Of Virginia And Case Analysis of Lien Reduction Litigation Is Virginia
More informationCASE NOTE: J. Blake Mayes I. FACTS
CASE NOTE: GUNNELL V. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY: THE ANTI-ABROGATION CLAUSE AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST LEGISLATIVE SHIELDING FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT LIABILITY J. Blake Mayes I. FACTS In July of 1995, Stanley
More information(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 19, 2015) SECOND REPRINT S.B Referred to Committee on Judiciary
(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May, 0) SECOND REPRINT S.B. SENATE BILL NO. SENATOR ROBERSON MARCH, 0 Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY Provides for the determination of damage awards in
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 15, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 15, 2005 Session EDWARD JOHNSON, ET AL. v. KATIE E. WILSON, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County No. 22839 Lawrence H. Puckett,
More informationINDIVISIBLE INJURIES
INDIVISIBLE INJURIES Amelia J. Staunton February 2011 1 CONTACT LAWYER Amelia Staunton 604.891.0359 astaunton@dolden.com 1 Introduction What happens when a Plaintiff, recovering from injuries sustained
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-08-175-CV ANNE BOENIG APPELLANT V. STARNAIR, INC. APPELLEE ------------ FROM THE 393RD DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY ------------ OPINION ------------
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-2065 SUMMIT CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, L.T. CASE NO. 4D04-2458 INC., d/b/a CLAIMS CENTER, as Servicing Agent for FLORIDA RETAIL FEDERATED SELF INSURED FUND, vs. Petitioner,
More informationLILLIE FREEMAN KEMP, Plaintiff, v. KRISTY GAYLE SPIVEY and TABOR CITY RESCUE SQUAD, Defendants NO. COA Filed: 5 October 2004
LILLIE FREEMAN KEMP, Plaintiff, v. KRISTY GAYLE SPIVEY and TABOR CITY RESCUE SQUAD, Defendants NO. COA03-1022 Filed: 5 October 2004 1. Pleadings compulsory counterclaim negligence total damages still speculative
More informationIOWA. A. Requirements for Recovery of Medical Expenses. Under Iowa law, an injured plaintiff may recover the reasonable value of necessary medical
IOWA Richard J. Sapp Christian P. Walk NYEMASTER, GOODE, WEST, HANSELL & O BRIEN, P.C. 700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: 515-283-3100 Facsimile: 515-283-8045 rjs@nyemaster.com
More informationState Laws Chart I: Liability Reforms
State Laws Chart I: Liability Reforms State Damage Caps Joint Liability Reform Collateral Source Reform Alabama ne. Each defendant is jointly and Yes Yes for awards of future damages in excess of $150,000.
More informationIndiana: Failure to Wear Seatbelt Not Admissible in Personal Injury Case
www.pavlacklawfirm.com May 25 2015 by: Colin E. Flora Associate Civil Litigation Attorney Indiana: Failure to Wear Seatbelt Not Admissible in Personal Injury Case Last week, the Court of Appeals of Indiana
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 3, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 3, 2007 Session BILL F. GRINDSTAFF, ET AL. v. JOHN P. BOWMAN, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Blount County No. L-14047 W. Dale Young,
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CULPEPER COUNTY John R. Cullen, Judge. In these consolidated interlocutory appeals arising from
Present: All the Justices ESTATE OF ROBERT JUDSON JAMES, ADMINISTRATOR, EDWIN F. GENTRY, ESQ. v. Record No. 081310 KENNETH C. PEYTON AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PA OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE
More informationKENNETH WAYNE AUSTIN OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No June 5, 1998
Present: All the Justices KENNETH WAYNE AUSTIN OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 972627 June 5, 1998 CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY UPON A QUESTION OF LAW CERTIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2016 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2016 Session TERRY JUSTIN VAUGHN v. CITY OF TULLAHOMA, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 42013 Vanessa A. Jackson,
More informationTexas Courts Should Reduce a Plaintiff s Responsibility Before Applying the Noneconomic Damage Cap
Texas Courts Should Reduce a Plaintiff s Responsibility Before Applying the Noneconomic Damage Cap Monica Litle* I. INTRODUCTION Throughout the course of tort reform, the Texas Legislature passed two bills
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC03-127 HELEN M. CARUSO, etc., Petitioner, vs. EARL BAUMLE, Respondent. CANTERO, J. [June 24, 2004] CORRECTED OPINION This case involves the introduction in evidence of personal
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Randall R. Adams Kevin M. Ceglowski Poyner Spruill LLP 130 S. Franklin St. Rocky Mount, NC 27804 Tel: (252) 972 7094 Email: rradams@poynerspruill.com
More information